SPF Coupe VS FFR Coupe

289fia_cobra · #1 (**permalink**) 08-25-2008, 08:54 AM

Ron, I didn't know you got a Coupe!!! You've got to bring it to Snakes-to-the-Lakes!!!!

Are you and/or Curtis going up this year???? I'd like to take a peek at your Coupe.

With all the talk about correct look or prettier looks, I think FFR is just saying it's not exact but FFR's in any of their models have never "looked" like the original things they replicate, which is fine. It's just a method to avoid legal issues with CS et-al.

So long as we all understand the definitions of "original" v.s. "authentic" which gets a lot of panties up in a bunch, I think it's clear that even a "Brock Coupe" isn't an original from the 60's. Just an original based on the signature on a contract... I'd almost classify them as a "contiuation" execpt they're not since Peter has a hand in redesigning some aspects of it. I think SPF SHOULD reconsider calling it a "Brock Coupe" ; I think any owner should too. If Peter has no problem in that (could be why SPF isn't using it?) then saying "this is an original Brock Coupe" is a dead-on accurate statement.

I'm glad "vette" made his decision. I think he'll enjoy it. It would be nice to get a follow-up on the paddle shifters.

Maricopa · #2 (**permalink**) 08-25-2008, 09:01 AM

[Edit] Ok, I did a little research and my statement was misinformed. I blame the time elapsed since I last read about this stuff, and the roofers for having me up at 5am.

ENTDOC · #3 (**permalink**) 08-25-2008, 09:16 AM

I was not aware the Shelby sued SPF. It was certainly magnanimous of FFR to shoulder that cost, of course if the other makes were not named in the suit why would they chip in to defend it. I also remember a time when it was rumored that FFR and Shelby were going to join forces and the proletariat was absolutly giddy about that prospect.

Maricopa · #4 (**permalink**) 08-25-2008, 09:21 AM

I Googled up this. The first Shelby FFR suit is pretty well documented but I was all wet about the 2nd one.

http://performanceunlimited.com/supe...rcomments.html

CoupedUp · #5 (**permalink**) 08-25-2008, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 289fia_cobra

So long as we all understand the definitions of "original" v.s. "authentic" which gets a lot of panties up in a bunch, I think it's clear that even a "Brock Coupe" isn't an original from the 60's. Just an original based on the signature on a contract... I'd almost classify them as a "contiuation" execpt they're not since Peter has a hand in redesigning some aspects of it. I think SPF SHOULD reconsider calling it a "Brock Coupe" ; I think any owner should too. If Peter has no problem in that (could be why SPF isn't using it?) then saying "this is an original Brock Coupe" is a dead-on accurate statement.

Peter has no problem with the term "Brock Coupe." Superformance had to pay a bunch of money to CS to settle the lawsuit. They now refer to it as a Shelby Daytona Coupe I believe in part due to the terms of the settlement and in part due to the marketability of the Shelby name. The fact that these cars are now included in the Shelby registry adds value to the car, no matter what your personal opinions may be. Keep in mind that my statements are my opinion based on what I know and not meant to be a statement of fact. I don't want to get sued!

Doug